Curia - Delegate Communication Thread

Delegation
1

Curia Delegate Platform

Key Information

Name: Curia

Delegate ENS: curia-delegates.eth

Delegate Address: 0x17296956b4E07Ff8931E4ff4eA06709FaB70b879

Delegate Forum: @englandzz

Telegram: @englandkiiz

Twitter: Curia Gov

Website: Curia Hub

Introduction

Curia Lab is a team of seasoned DAO governance researchers, data analysts, blockchain engineers, and developers. We are dedicated to strengthening DAO ecosystems through specialized tools, insights, and delegate services. We actively engage in DAO governance with a focus on data transparency and efficiency.

Our Mission & Vision

  • Mission: Mission: CuriaLab is dedicated to empowering DAOs with robust, data-driven tools, ensuring transparency and efficiency in governance processes. We actively engage in DAO governance as a professional delegate, leveraging our hands-on experience to refine our tools for each DAO. This commitment ensures our tools are battle-tested and evolved, addressing challenges such as data inaccessibility, opaque delegate actions, and governance risk assessments with precision and relevance.

  • Vision: We envision a future where DAO governance is seamless, fully transparent, and informed by comprehensive data. We aim to create an ecosystem where delegate influence is clear and contributions are measurable, enabling near real-time monitoring and strategic enhancement of DAO operations. Curia Lab aspires to lead DAOs into an era where every decision is strategic and data-driven, ensuring a resilient and dynamic governance model.

Our Goals for ParaswapDAO

Curia Lab aims to enhance governance transparency and efficiency within ParaswapDAO Providing insights to improve decision-making processes. Ensuring transparency in governance and delegate actions. Offering near real-time monitoring to optimize DAO operations and governance outcomes.

Disclosure

As a governance and DAO research team, we work with several DAOs, such as ArbitrumDAO, SafeDAO, Optimism Collective, EverClear and GnosisDAO, to enhance their governance and decision-making processes. We are committed to maintaining transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest in our work with the Paraswap community. When required, we will disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may arise during our engagement.

Waiver of Liability

By delegating to Curia, you acknowledge and agree that Curia will participate in Paraswap governance on a best-effort basis and will not be liable for any form of damages related to participation in Paraswap.

4 Likes
2

Welcome Curia,
I am totally aligned with your mission and your vision.
I am very excited at the idea that we will be able to benefit from your help and support. I’m sure you will help us grow.

3 Likes
3

Proposal: PIP-57 - PIP Lifecycle Improvements

Vote: For

Rationale: After reviewing the delegate feedback and the proposal, we are in favor for this proposal as it will improve governance processes— clearer timelines, accountability measures, and safeguards like Debate, Frozen, and Timelock periods—will definitely enhance governance experience and transparency.

On top of that, we’d love to suggest introducing a fixed voting schedule and extending the voting period to 7 days. This would make it much easier for everyone to keep track of timelines and participate consistently. For example, in Arbitrum, the voting period runs from Thursday to the following Thursday, aligning with the time most delegates typically cast their votes. From our experience, this consistency has been incredibly effective!

We’ve previously worked on voting data to optimize schedules and would be keen to assist in identifying the optimal voting days for Paraswap as well.

1 Like
4

Proposal: PIP-54- Delegate Program Trial Period

Vote: For

Rationale: we are in favor for the delegate program, as it will enhance the overall goverancne security and increase the activity within the DAO plus there no cost needed

Proposal: PIP-55- Reward Mechanism Automation

Vote: For

Rationale: Hi @0xGonzacolo , Thank you for the proposal. After carefully reviewing it, along with the questions and feedback from delegates, we generally favor automation within DAOs, and the budget seems reasonable. However, we would like to understand more about which parts of the mechanism are centralized and which are decentralized. Thanks in advance!

Proposal: PIP-56: Implementation of Project MirĂł Roadmap and Migration

Vote: For

Rationale: We’re excited to support PIP-56 as it moves ParaSwap DAO towards an intents-centric trading platform, making participation simpler and setting the stage for growth. The migration plan and streamlined governance are great steps forward.That said, we’re curious about the marketing allocation—what’s the plan? Will it involve sponsoring events, partnerships, or other promotional activities? Overall, this is a promising proposal, and we’re looking forward to seeing it come to life!

Proposal: PEP-08: Upgrade Module End-of-Life Strategy

Vote: For

Rationale: We support the proposal as it lets sePSP1 stakers migrate without the 28-day wait, benefiting token supporters without any cost to the DAO. However, we also agree with Seedlatam’s suggestion to set a predetermined time limit (e.g., 3 or 6 months) for this benefit, after which the normal withdrawal process applies.

5

Proposal: PIP-58 - ParaSwap Delegate Incentives Program - Cycle 1

Vote: For

Rationale: We’re huge fans of @SEEDGov’s DIP and fully support this proposal. We believe Seedgov’s initiative will professionalize governance, boost participation, and enhance transparency within the DAO, and we’re eager to contribute to its success.

Proposal: PIP-59: Proposal for Returning 40.203 wETH to Bybit (After 10% Bounty Deduction)

Vote: For

Rationale: We support returning the 44.67 wETH to Bybit because we believe it’s the right thing to do, especially since these funds are tied to an illicit transaction. Returning the funds reflects our commitment to integrity and responsible governance.

That said, we also understand @AranaDigital ’s concerns about fairness for our stakers. Many stakers have trusted the system by actively participating and earning fee distributions, and it’s important that any actions we take don’t unfairly affect their rewards. We need to carefully address the risk that staking rewards, seen as a legitimate income, could be retroactively impacted.

Additionally, we feel it’s crucial to fully explore the legal implications of our decision. We need to clarify whether not returning these funds or keeping a portion of it might expose the DAO to future legal consequences or even litigation. A thorough legal review will help ensure that everyone understands the risks and liabilities of both returning and retaining the funds.

To move forward, we suggest giving additional consideration to the following areas:

1. Establish a Clear Framework:
Develop a Transparent Process for Handling Funds Tied to Illicit Activity. We propose establishing a clear and open process to identify and manage funds linked to illicit activity. This framework will clearly outline roles, responsibilities, and the steps required to ensure fairness for everyone, just as @AranaDigital mentioned. To cover the costs associated with setting up and maintaining this process, we could charge a fee. For example, a modest fee (say, 2-5% of the returned funds) could be allocated to cover the necessary administrative, legal, and operational expenses (if applicable).

2. Legal Review:
Hire a proper legal counsel to:

  • Understand potential legal liabilities for the DAO.
  • Determine if any entity could pursue legal action based on our decision.
  • Learn best practices from similar cases to protect all stakeholders.
    (Note that any legal review expenses should be covered from the 44.67 wETH.)

Proposal: PIP-60 - Expansion of Project Miro token and staking system to Base

Vote: For

Rationale: We will support this proposal, as Base is currently one of the leading L2 chains in the industry with strong DAUs, and expanding alongside Project Miro makes a lot of sense. Incentives are an effective way to attract users, and the $40K budget seems reasonable given it covers smart contract development, audits, and gas costs. We also appreciate that the spend will be in ETH or FTM instead of PSP, which helps preserve the DAO’s native token. That said, we do have one question: if there are future plans to expand to other EVM chains, should we expect a similar cost structure each time? It would be helpful to understand the scalability of this model going forward.

6

Proposal: PIP-61: Increase Quorum Threshold

Vote: For

Rationale: Thanks to @jengajojo_daoplomats for bringing up the idea of increasing the quorum, this is something we’ve also noticed and mentioned in our own proposal.

As highlighted in the forum post:

This kind of imbalance clearly shows the risk of the current 2% quorum, it’s simply too low and doesn’t reflect the growing size and influence of the ParaSwap DAO.

We support increasing the quorum to 8% to ensure that governance decisions are backed by a broader and more representative base of token holders.

Additionally, we’d like to suggest a further refinement:
Different quorum thresholds for different proposal types for example, one for the Core Governor and another for the Treasury Governor.
This would ensure that more critical or sensitive proposals (like those affecting treasury funds) have a higher minimum participation requirement.

We believe this would lead to a more secure, accountable, and community-driven governance process.

7

Proposal: [PIP-62 - Velora Governance Task Force]

Vote: For

Rationale: Thanks for the response @SEEDGov really appreciate the detailed answers.

We totally agree that focusing on quality over quantity makes sense, and we’re aligned with that approach. We just wanted to make sure there are proposals already being planned so there’s a clear path forward, and it’s great to hear you’re already working on areas like treasury management and grants.

Also appreciate the clarification on the Governance Task Force setup. While it’ll be managed by your team, we’re glad to hear there will still be opportunities for others in the DAO to contribute through new structures and initiatives.

With that said, we’ll be voting in favor of the proposal and are looking forward to what’s ahead!

8

Proposal: Gas Refunds distribution for Epoch 29

Vote: For

Rationale: Thanks @WakeUpLabs for putting this proposal together. We are generally supportive of continuing gas refunds for active stakers, and we appreciate that the Merkle roots and distribution files have been shared via IPFS. That said, we noticed the IPFS link and Merkle root hashes weren’t posted in the forum thread itself. Adding them there would improve transparency and help keep everything in one place for easier reference. If possible, sharing a quick screenshot or summary showing that the numbers match the data would also be helpful. It would make the vote clearer and easier to follow for everyone in the DAO.

1 Like
9

Proposal: Rewards distribution for Epoch 29

Vote: For

Rationale: Thank you for the updated!

We’ve reviewed the details and, while we haven’t gone through every element in depth, everything appears consistent and aligns with the distribution structure that was previously communicated.

We’ll be supporting this proposal.

10

Proposal: PIP-63 - ParaSwap Growth Working Group Outcome - Velora Growth Framework (VGF) and Velora Growth Committee (VGC)

Vote: For

Rationale: We will support this proposal, as the DAO clearly needs a dedicated group to focus on driving Velora’s growth. However, we would like to clarify a few points:

which marketing channels will the Committee prioritize?

As other delegates have pointed out, setting clear KPIs would also be valuable to properly evaluate the group’s performance and manage expectations. We understand it can be complicated to define KPIs at the start, but if they could be aligned with Laita Labs and the Foundation’s mission to onboard more users to Velora and initiate new initiatives for the ecosystem, it would make the results more feasible and tangible to measure.